Reply to Alexandria Mayor Race

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Alexandria Mayor Race"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor.  At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council. [/quote]

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding.  They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true.  And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better.  And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.  
[/quote]

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied.  Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format.   Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.   [/quote]

Before Jinks agreed that the NDA was binding, he should have read the damned thing and given it to the city attorney for an immediate and thorough scrub.  Plainly, he did neither.  As a result, he prejudiced the City's entire position on the project.  Fire him.  Now.  
[/quote]

No one should be fired before having a chance to explain what happened.  No one.  In  the case of the City Manager, the entire Council should have a chance to question him, in open hearing.   Perhaps ALSO in closed hearing, if legal issues require it.

The only reason I can imagine someone would insist on firing before that, is because they wish to make the nonfiring an issue in Tuesday's election.

Can he even be fired absent one or more sessions of the Council?    I mean its the Council collectively that could do it, by vote.   And there isn't a session between now and the primary, is there?  Are you suggesting an emergency session? [/quote]

Their campaigns for re-election do NOT override their duties.  Yes, convene an emergency session.  Fire him.  Now.  
[/quote]

How is it an emergency?   A few dozen people bought 900k houses that they would have paid 800K for?  I mean really that should be the first and highest goal of the City Manager, not crime, not paving streets, not the health dept, not any of that, but making sure that the FACTS about whether houses currently on the market are 400 ft from a metro station for sure, or they are within 1200 feet (but PROBABLY will be about 400 ft) from a metro station, are known to home buyers.  Failing to use his time to ascertain the exact status of the NDA on behalf of those home buyers is such a manifest betrayal, that he not only deserves to be fired, but he needs to be fired immediately, no time for an investigation, the Council should do a Saturday session in the midst of a campaign (good for the challengers, eh? Did Sen McConnell write this?) just to fire him before he can do more damage.

Gotcha.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics